AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE vs Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE are both 4-core, 8-thread processors, yet they represent two very different eras of computing. The Xeon is a 2014 server/workstation part built on Intel’s 22 nm Haswell architecture, while the Ryzen is a 2018 desktop chip from AMD’s 14 nm Zen family. Despite the older process node, the Xeon holds its own in aggregate scoring, but the data reveals a clear generational shift in performance and efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1925, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE scores 1910. This places the Xeon just 0.8% higher on average, a margin that is effectively negligible.

Q: How does the Xeon E3-1231 v3 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon’s closest competitors are the Intel Core i3-10305T (1922, +0.2%), Intel Core i7-1180G7 (1930, -0.2%), AMD Opteron 6348 (1930, -0.2%), and Intel Core i7-6700T (1918, +0.3%). The data shows it sits in a tightly packed cluster where a 0.3% difference separates the top from the bottom.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE wins all six head-to-head benchmark tests, including both multi-core and single-core runs across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Its largest margin of victory is 9.7% in several categories.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two chips?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 has a TDP of 80 watts, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE is rated at 35 watts. This makes the Ryzen a much more power-efficient option on paper.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s, which is significantly higher than the Intel Xeon’s DDR3 support at 25.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE have their multipliers locked, meaning neither is designed for user overclocking.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two parts is stark. The Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 is built on a 22 nm process at Intel’s foundry, packing 1,400 million transistors into a 160 mm² die. It uses the Haswell-WS architecture, which is a derivative of Intel’s Haswell design tailored for the Xeon lineup. The Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE, in contrast, is fabricated on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm node and crams 4,950 million transistors into a larger 210 mm² die. That is more than three times the transistor count on a die that is only about 31% larger.

Cache hierarchies also differ fundamentally. The Xeon allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The Ryzen provides 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core but only 4 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen’s larger per-core caches suggest a design aimed at faster local data access, while the Xeon’s larger L3 pool points toward a server-oriented workload pattern where shared data is common.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The Xeon uses DDR3 in a dual-channel configuration, yielding 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen moves to DDR4, also dual-channel, but more than doubles bandwidth to 46.9 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for a desktop-class Ryzen part. PCIe lanes also diverge: the Xeon provides 16 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Ryzen offers only 8 Gen 3 lanes. The Ryzen compensates with integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics, something the Xeon lacks entirely.

The production status tells the lifecycle story. The Xeon E3-1231 v3 was released in May 2014 and is now end-of-life, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE launched in May 2018 and remains active. The Ryzen’s 2000 series branding and Raven Ridge codename highlight its integration of CPU and GPU on a single die, a design philosophy completely absent from the older Xeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE wins every single head-to-head test, but the margins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen scores 665 against the Xeon’s 601, a 9.6% advantage. Single-core in R15 shows a nearly identical gap, with 93 versus 84, a 9.7% delta.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Ryzen’s multi-core score of 2774 beats the Xeon’s 2506 by 9.7%. Single-core in R20 is 391 versus 353, again a 9.7% difference. The most current test, Cinebench R23, shows the same story: the Ryzen scores 6606 in multi-core against the Xeon’s 5967, and 932 in single-core against 842. Every delta is 9.7% except the R15 multi-core, which is 9.6%.

This uniformity is striking. It suggests that the performance gap is not workload-dependent but rather a consistent architectural advantage. The Ryzen’s higher per-core IPC, likely from its newer Zen design, translates into a predictable lead across both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks. The Xeon’s higher 3.40 GHz base clock (versus 3.20 GHz) and identical 3.80 GHz boost clock do not compensate for the architectural deficit.

The aggregate benchmark scores tell a different story. The Xeon’s average score of 1925 actually edges out the Ryzen’s 1910, despite losing every direct comparison. This discrepancy arises because the Xeon has Geekbench results (3939 multi-core, 1109 single-core) that the Ryzen does not have in the data pack. The Ryzen’s average is derived solely from its six Cinebench tests, which are consistently strong. The Xeon’s Geekbench numbers, while lower than its Cinebench relative performance, pull its average up slightly.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict for raw compute performance: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE is the faster processor. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks with a consistent 9.6-9.7% margin. This is not a case of one chip excelling in specific tasks; the Ryzen simply outpaces the Xeon across every metric tested.

However, the Xeon E3-1231 v3 is not obsolete. Its average benchmark score is slightly higher than the Ryzen’s, driven by its Geekbench results. For applications that rely on Geekbench-style workloads, the Xeon may hold a subtle edge. But the more modern and comprehensive Cinebench tests consistently favor the Ryzen.

The Ryzen’s advantages extend beyond performance. Its 35-watt TDP is less than half the Xeon’s 80 watts, making it a far more efficient choice for power-constrained systems. Its support for DDR4 memory with nearly double the bandwidth (46.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s) positions it better for memory-intensive tasks. The integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 GPU also eliminates the need for a discrete graphics card, which the Xeon cannot offer.

The Xeon’s strengths lie in its legacy and platform characteristics. It offers 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, double the Ryzen’s 8 lanes, which is relevant for multi-GPU or high-bandwidth expansion setups. Its larger 8 MB L3 cache may benefit workloads with high data sharing. But these are niche advantages in a world where the Ryzen delivers more performance per watt and per clock.

For a new build, the Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE is the logical choice. It is faster, more efficient, and supports modern memory. For an existing Socket 1150 platform, the Xeon remains a capable drop-in upgrade, but it is a relic of a bygone era.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 1150, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4. The Xeon is built on a 22 nm node with 1,400 million transistors and a 160 mm² die; the Ryzen uses a 14 nm node with 4,950 million transistors and a 210 mm² die. The Xeon’s base clock is 3.40 GHz versus the Ryzen’s 3.20 GHz, but both boost to 3.80 GHz.

Cache configurations diverge significantly: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core with 8 MB shared L3, while the Ryzen has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 4 MB shared L3. Memory support is split between DDR3 (25.6 GB/s) on the Xeon and DDR4 (46.9 GB/s) on the Ryzen. The Xeon provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, the Ryzen only 8. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics, while the Xeon has none.

TDP is a major differentiator: 80 watts for the Xeon versus 35 watts for the Ryzen. The Xeon was released in May 2014 and is end-of-life, with a launch MSRP of $250. The Ryzen was released in May 2018 and remains active, with no launch MSRP listed. Both have locked multipliers, 4 cores, 8 threads, dual-channel memory buses, and ECC support. The Xeon targets the server/workstation segment, while the Ryzen is a desktop part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE wins in every benchmark category tested, including Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single and multi-core modes. Its consistent 9.7% lead suggests it is the superior choice for general-purpose computing, content creation, and any workload that benefits from modern IPC improvements. Its lower TDP and DDR4 support make it ideal for compact, energy-efficient builds. The integrated Vega 11 GPU adds a use case for basic graphical tasks without a discrete card.

The Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but its higher average benchmark score (1925 versus 1910) indicates it performs well in Geekbench tests, which are not included in the direct comparison. This makes it a potential option for tasks that align with Geekbench’s workload profile. Its 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU provide more expansion bandwidth than the Ryzen’s 8 lanes, which benefits systems with multiple NVMe drives or high-end GPUs. The larger 8 MB L3 cache could also favor server-style workloads with frequent shared data access.

In practical terms, the Ryzen is the winner for new builds, especially those prioritizing efficiency and modern memory. The Xeon remains relevant only for users already invested in the Socket 1150 platform who need a server-grade CPU without changing motherboards. The data shows a generational leap in performance, but also reveals that the older Xeon still holds a marginal edge in aggregate scoring, making it a viable legacy option.